coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Zduńska Wola, Poland.
7.   In 1980 the applicant was convicted of “having organised an illegal demonstration and having made disrespectful remarks concerning the Polish Nation” and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment. On 20 March 1996 the Supreme Court acquitted him of all charges.
8.  On 17 May 1996 the applicant filed a request for compensation with the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki) for his wrongful conviction and imprisonment.
9.  On 28 January 1997 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Regional Court to accelerate examination of the case. In reply, the Regional Court informed the applicant that, due to a large number of similar cases pending before the court, it could not set any approximate date for a hearing in the case.
10.  On 19 June 2001 the applicant again requested the Regional Court to accelerate examination of his case. The Regional Court informed the applicant that the explanation given in its previous letter remained valid.
11.  It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Warsaw Regional Court.
7.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Cracow, Poland.
8.  On 21 October 1991 the applicant’s husband filed a divorce petition with the Cracow Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).
9.  Subsequently, the court held hearings on 13 February and 7 May 1992.
10.  On 20 July 1992 the trial court secured the applicant’s maintenance claims. The applicant’s husband appealed. On 23 November 1992 the Cracow Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal.
11.  The court held hearings on the following dates: 11 May, 22 June, 14 September 1993, 13 September and 4 November 1994.
12.  On 12 April 1995 the trial court again secured the applicant’s maintenance claims. The applicant’s husband appealed. On 3 August 1995 the Cracow Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.
13.  Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on the following dates: 17 October 1995, 5 March, 11 June, 5 November 1996, 4 March and 26 June 1997.
14.  On 8 July 1997 the court granted a divorce decree. The applicant appealed.
15.  On 21 January 1998 the Cracow Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
16.  On 5 February 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment. On 28 July 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment was delivered to the applicant on 1 December 1999.
7.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Piła, Poland.
8.  On 28 September 1992 the applicant sued T.K and J.J. (“the defendants”) in the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), seeking a payment by bill of exchange.
9.  On 10 March 1993 the trial court held the first hearing. Subsequently, the court held hearings on the following dates: 11 July 1994 and 14 February 1995.
10.  In the meantime the applicant had complained to the President of the trial court about the length of the proceedings.
11.  The court held hearings on the following dates: 16 November 1995, 20 June 1996, 3 February, 5 September and 16 October 1997.
12.  On 29 October 1997 the court gave judgment. The defendants appealed.
13.  On 21 April 1998 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.
14.  On 22 October 1998 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice about the slow conduct of the proceedings.
15.  On 6 July 1998 the defendants lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment. In the meantime, the applicant had applied for enforcement of the judgment.
16.  On 22 October 1998 the applicant complained to the President of the Poznań Regional Court about the delay in deciding her request for enforcement of the judgment.
17.  On 28 April 1999 the Supreme Court gave judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.
18.  On 19 August 1999 the Poznań Court of Appeal gave judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.
19.  On 3 November 1999 the applicant requested the court to secure the claim.
20.  On 25 January 2000 the applicant again complained to the Minister of Justice about the length of the proceedings.
21.  On 17 February 2000 the Poznań Regional Court held a hearing.
22.  On 28 April 2000 the court dismissed the applicant’s request to secure the claim. Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on the following dates: 1 June, 7 November 2000 and 9 January 2001.
23.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul.
7.  On 21 January 1997 the prison warders found three issues of a magazine titled “The Imperialist Capitalist System and the YPD” (Emperyalist Kapitalist Sistem ve YPD Üzerine) on Y.Ö. and S.Ö. who were paying a visit to N.Ö. and S.S. in the Gebze Prison. The magazines were published by the PKK (Worker's Party of Kurdistan) and the TRK/RIZGARİ.
8.  In their statements Y.Ö. and S.Ö. stated that they obtained the magazines from the applicant at the Komal Publication House in Istanbul.
9.  On 23 January 1997 police officers from the Istanbul Security Directorate conducted a search at the premises of the Komal Publication House and subsequently arrested the applicant along with eight others.
10.  On 24 January 1997 the Istanbul Security Directorate requested the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court to authorise an extension of the applicant's detention period. On the same day the public prosecutor authorised the Security Directorate to extend the detention period until 31 January 1997.
11.  On 27 January 1997 the applicant's lawyer petitioned the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court and requested to see the applicant. The public prosecutor rejected this request without giving any reasons.
12.  On 31 January 1997 the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor and refused the accusations against him. The applicant was released on the same day.
13.  On 3 February 1997 the public prosecutor decided not to commit the applicant for trial (takipsizlik kararı) on the grounds that there existed no evidence to substantiate his involvement in the activities of terrorist organisations.
7.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Szczecin, Poland.
8.  In 1989 the applicant, who worked as head of a department in a state-owned enterprise dealing with conservation of old buildings, was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed with the Szczecin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an action in which he requested that his dismissal be declared null and void, as well as that he be reinstated in his former post.
9.  On 16 February 1990 the court dismissed his action. The applicant appealed, but on 22 June 1990 the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed his appeal.
10.  On 7 June 1993 the Ombudsman lodged an extraordinary appeal against the Regional Court’s judgment.
11.  On 14 July 1993 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.
12.  In his pleadings of 28 March 1994 the applicant withdrew his claim for reinstatement in his former post and raised a compensation claim.
13.  The District Court held hearings on 9 May and 28 November 1994, as well as on 2 and 25 January 1995.
14.  On 25 January 1995 it dismissed the action again.
15.  On 30 June 1995 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s judgment.
16.  On 2 August 1996 the Ombudsman lodged a cassation appeal against that judgment.
17.  On 13 December 1996 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.
18.  On 23 April 1997 the Szczecin District Court stayed the proceedings, because of the fact that insolvency proceedings concerning the defendant were pending. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. On 30 June 1997 it was dismissed by the Szczecin Regional Court.
19.  On 21 September 1998 the District Court resumed the proceedings.
20.  On 22 October 1998 it held a hearing.
21.  On 26 October 1998 the court awarded the applicant a partial compensation. The applicant appealed against that judgment.
22.  On 17 February 1999 the Szczecin Regional Court held a hearing.
23.  On 24 February 1999 it quashed the judgment of 26 October 1998 and remitted the case for re-examination.
24.  The District Court held hearings on 23 July, as well as on 15 and 29 November 1999.
25.  On 29 November 1999 it gave a judgment, in which it awarded the applicant compensation. The applicant appealed.
26.  The Szczecin Regional Court held hearings on 10 and 31 May 2000.
27.  On 31 May 2000 it amended the judgment under appeal in that it increased the amount of the compensation.
6.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Dunabogdány, Hungary.
7.  On 16 May 1991 the applicant brought an action against her former husband before the Szentendre District Court for a division of their matrimonial property.
8.  On 4 November 1991 and 8 January 1992 the parties were heard by the District Court and the applicant was ordered to submit her motions for the hearing of evidence within 30 days.
9.  Further hearings took place on 6 April and 13 August 1992, at which the parties announced that they hoped to reach an agreement. At the hearing on 16 November 1992 the parties informed the court that the settlement negotiations had proved unsuccessful.
10.  At the hearing on 24 May 1993 the applicant failed to appear. The District Court heard two witnesses. It also ordered the applicant to deposit an advance to cover the costs of an expert. Further hearings were held on 17 January, 9 February and 16 February 1994. At the hearing on 30 March 1994 the District Court found it necessary to appoint an expert and ordered the parties to deposit the anticipated costs or submit a request for exemption. The applicant submitted a request for exemption; the defendant, despite a warning, failed to comply with the order.
11.  The hearing scheduled for 15 February 1995 was postponed due to the illness of the judge. Further hearings took place on 22 March, 24 April, and 2 October 1995, 2 September and 18 December 1996. On 27 November 1997 the court appointed an expert. Further hearings were held on 5 February, 23 June, 28 September and 23 November 1998, 18 and 25 January 1999.
12.  On 17 February 1999 the Szentendre District Court delivered judgment, which was served on 27 April 1999 and became final on 13 May 1999.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Salerno.
5.  M.G. was the owner of a flat in Salerno, which he had let to U.A.
6.  In a registered letter of 23 May 1988, the owner informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 10 December 1988, the owner reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Salerno Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 3 February 1989, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Salerno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 May 1993.
9.  On 21 December 1990, the applicant became the owner of the flat and pursued the enforcement proceedings.
10.  On 17 April 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On the same day, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
12.  On 21 May 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 June 1993.
13.  On 30 June 1993, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  Thereafter, the applicant decided to suspend the bailiff's attempts in order to avoid any additional costs and because she would not be granted the assistance of the police.
15.  In the meanwhile, the tenant died and on 11 October 1999, his wife asked the Salerno Magistrate to suspend the enforcement proceedings.
16.  The Salerno Magistrate suspended the enforcement proceedings until 13 May 2000.
17.  The tenant's wife informed the applicant that she would not leave the premises.
18.  On 11 October 2000, the applicant served notice on the tenant's wife informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 November 2000.
19.  On 6 November 2000, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, but the tenant's son informed the bailiff that he and his mother would leave the premises on 29 November 2000.
20.  On 27 November 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Florence.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to A.R.
6.  In a registered letter of 29 June 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 7 July 1989, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 21 September 1989, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 21 September 1990.
10.  On 25 November 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On 9 February 1995, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 February 1995.
12.  Between 22 February 1995 and 13 June 2001, the bailiff made nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 6 December 1995, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son
14.  On 17 August 2000, pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 13 June 2001.
15.  On 29 June 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicants were respectively born in 1946 and 1950 and live in Rome.
5.  They are the owners of a flat in Rome, which they had let to A.M.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 December 1986, the applicants informed her of their intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 9 May 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 September 1988.
8.  On 7 October 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
9.  On 12 December 1989, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 December 1989.
10.  Between 29 December 1989 and 20 April 2001, the bailiff made fifty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
11.  On 6 May 2001, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
7.  The applicant, Mr Egon von Bülow, is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1946 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment at HM Prison Erlestoke.
8.  The applicant was convicted in 1975 for the murder of a policeman and attempted murder of two other policemen arising out of an incident in the early hours of 6 July 1974 when, on being stopped by the police, he had pulled out a pistol and shot all three officers. He was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment for the murder and to two concurrent terms of fifteen years imprisonment for the attempted murders.
9.  After his trial, the trial judge recommended that he serve a tariff (minimum period of detention representing the elements of retribution and deterrence) of 20 years. The Lord Chief Justice agreed. The Secretary of State did not set a tariff.
10.  By letter dated 25 July 2000, the applicant was informed that the Secretary of State had given fresh consideration to the tariff in his case. The letter stated that the Secretary of State had decided to set the tariff at 23 years and that, as this period had expired, the tariff was no longer a factor in the applicant’s continued detention.
11.  By letter dated 27 March 2001, the applicant was informed that the Parole Board had not recommended his release. Though some improvement had been observed, it was noted that the reports on the applicant agreed that he still had some way to go before a move to open conditions could be contemplated. As his progress in a category C prison had been encouraging however, his next review was set to commence on March 2002.
5.  The applicant was born in 1937.
6.  He was the owner of a flat in Livorno, which he had let to M.S.
7.  In a registered letter of 4 March 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
8.  On 9 October 1984, he served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 7 January 1986, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 20 January 1986, which was made enforceable on 21 January 1986, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 20 December 1986.
11.  On 2 April 1987 the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 21 April 1987 he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 May 1987.
13.  Between 24 May 1987 and 27 November 1998 the bailiff made eighteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On 15 December 1998, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Torino.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Turin, which he had let to A.G.
6.  In a registered letter of 27 November 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 October 1992 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 17 March 1993, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 27 April 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 March 1993.
9.  On 5 November 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
10.  On 18 January 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 January 1994.
11.  On 19 January 1994, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
12.  Between 28 January 1994 and 23 September 1998, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 12 July 1999, pursuant to Law no. 431/98 the enforcement proceedings were suspended for eighteen months.
14.  On 18 November 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
6.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Milan.
7.  She is the owner of a flat in Milan, which she had let to W.V.
8.  In a registered letter of 10 September 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 23 March 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 17 November 1992, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 14 December 1992, which was made enforceable on 8 January 1993, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 14 December 1993.
11.  On 21 November 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 11 January 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 February 1995.
13.  Between 10 February 1995 and 10 December 2001, the bailiff made twenty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On 10 January 2002, following the voluntary surrender of the tenant, the applicant recovered possession of her flat.
7.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Naples.
8.  She is the owner of a flat in Naples, which she had let to A.M.
9.  In a registered letter of 27 November 1978, she informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 3 June 1979 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
10.  On 30 June 1980, she served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.
11.  In a writ of 5 March 1981, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
12.  At the hearing of 5 May 1981, A.M. opposed alleging the expiry of the term on 31 January 1984. The Magistrate declared his incompetence and referred the parties to the Naples Tribunal.
13.  By a decision of 13 February 1985, which was made enforceable on 11 March 1987, the Naples Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 20 February 1986.
14.  At the hearing of 21 June 1985, A.M. opposed, alleging the expiry of the term on another date.
15.  On 12 December 1986, the Naples Tribunal rejected the appeal.
16.  On 15 November 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 June 1990.
17.  On 17 January 1990, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her daughter.
18.  Between 13 June 1990 and 13 October 1997, the bailiff made twenty-six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
19.  On 18 June 2002, the applicant' representative informed the Court that in the meantime, the applicant had entered into a new lease with the tenant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Florence.
5.  She is the owner of a flat in Sesto Fiorentino (Florence), which she had let to G.L.M.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 18 September 1987, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and summoned him to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 12 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 26 October 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
8.  On 11 July 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
9.  On 15 September 1989, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 October 1989.
10.  Between 9 October 1989 and 10 November 1998 the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
11.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings.
12.  On an unspecified date in April 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat because the tenant spontaneously left the premises.